06-28-2008, 05:41 PM
06-29-2008, 01:58 PM
Ron Paul ran in the primaries just like all the others. He was in the debates just like all the others. His backers poured money into his campaign resukting in a better financed campaign than many of the other candidates.
Less than 15% of the voters wanted him as a candidate. There was no conspiracy. People saw him, heard him, and rejected him.
Less than 15% of the voters wanted him as a candidate. There was no conspiracy. People saw him, heard him, and rejected him.
06-29-2008, 02:09 PM
joesteel64 Wrote:
Actually Max, in this case, I agree with the points Illusion raises. As I've been thinking them for some time. Votes for excellent candidates ARE frequently wasted, because people are so sucked into the basica Two-Party system. Now-a-days the two parties might as well be a single party. People "waste" their votes on Third parties, because they've seen that there's an alternative to the "Same stuff, different day" gov't we have. (Not sure if that wuote makes sense there). If there wasn't such a negative stigma attached to the Third Parties, we could have variety in who we chose, and could grow far more as a country, than we ever will with two parties constantly bashing each other.
It's not that people are somehow fooled into thinking we have a two party system, Joe. We do have a two party system -- certainly on a federal level. It's embedded in the whole structure. I would prefer a different system, but that would require an overhaul of civic structure that will not happen in our lifetimes.
The idea that there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats died a painful death in 2000 when the Supreme Court's judicial coup placed bush in the White House. The last seven years of Bush/GOP rule have demonstrated the difference dramatically.
The difference most powerfully impacts people who are not part of the white, male, straight, Christian, upper-middle-class, heterosexual "majority." The outsiders suffer most from Republican rule.
06-30-2008, 04:33 AM
DogBrain Wrote:
The best thing any president could do for the USA is the one thing that no president will ever do--destroy the imperial presidency. We have the most powerful monarch in the world. Sure, it's an elected monarch, and the monarch can't reign for more than 10 years total, but the president of the USA has more personal power than anyone excepting possibly Vladimir Putin and the disturbingly quiet and polite man who currently runs China.
Over the centuries, presidential power has been carefully built and husbanded until we have reached the point wherein a president can issue unlimited "signing statements" to laws with impunity. (For the uninitiated, a signing statement is a statement issued by a president when he signs a bill into law. The statement usually boils down to "I won't enforce this or that part of this law.") Likewise, presidents now invoke "executive privilege" to prevent their underlings from testifying to Congress over anything and everything.
The great outrage with the current president is not the shenanigans he pulls. The great outrage is that his predecessors, including the Democrats, have taken the US government to a point wherein a US president can get away with such shenanigans.
Of course, dogmatic idiots will refuse to understand this and blame the "enemy" political party for all evils. But here is what it boils down to:
Every single time your favorite political party expands government power in order to promulgate an agenda that you agree with, it has given the opposite party access to the exact same power to use in promulgating its agenda once the pendulum swings in its favor--and it always will.
Over the centuries, presidential power has been carefully built and husbanded until we have reached the point wherein a president can issue unlimited "signing statements" to laws with impunity. (For the uninitiated, a signing statement is a statement issued by a president when he signs a bill into law. The statement usually boils down to "I won't enforce this or that part of this law.") Likewise, presidents now invoke "executive privilege" to prevent their underlings from testifying to Congress over anything and everything.
The great outrage with the current president is not the shenanigans he pulls. The great outrage is that his predecessors, including the Democrats, have taken the US government to a point wherein a US president can get away with such shenanigans.
Of course, dogmatic idiots will refuse to understand this and blame the "enemy" political party for all evils. But here is what it boils down to:
Every single time your favorite political party expands government power in order to promulgate an agenda that you agree with, it has given the opposite party access to the exact same power to use in promulgating its agenda once the pendulum swings in its favor--and it always will.
Check the history on "signing statements" and you'll find that it was never used by either party for in the extravagant and anti-constitutional way Bush has used it
The folks behind the puppet Bush intended a permanent Republican majority (which didn't sound entirely insane at one point) and building an Imperial Presidency was a principle goal.
The interesting development now is that there's an increasing likelihood of a Democratic president. The Bushovics didn't turn the presidency into a supreme monarchy just to turn that consolidated power over to Barack Obama.
So it will be interesting to see how the GOP will hold onto it. I don't think it will happen at the ballot box.
06-30-2008, 04:33 PM
I thought all the "there's not a dimes worth of difference" diehards had been crushed by the reality of the last seven years. I guess some survived.
06-30-2008, 08:53 PM
It's not just defeatist BS, it's about being so paralyzed by bitterness that all one can do is the "Angry Old man Sits on Porch Shaking Fist at a Cloud" thing.
I am completely prepared for Obama to be a disappointment on many issues. I could name several already. But the difference between Obama with a Democratic majority and Bush with an essential 50/50 Senate will be dramatic. If there were no other issue but the supreme court, it would be reason enough to throw all available support to Obama.
I am completely prepared for Obama to be a disappointment on many issues. I could name several already. But the difference between Obama with a Democratic majority and Bush with an essential 50/50 Senate will be dramatic. If there were no other issue but the supreme court, it would be reason enough to throw all available support to Obama.
07-16-2008, 07:04 PM
NotYourAverageJoe Wrote:
I don't care how many Bush/McCain barbs are thrown at him, everybody knows John McCain is nothing like W
God save us all from what "everybody knows."
Evertbody needs to read this. Or just pay a little attention.
07-18-2008, 05:08 AM
Just one more on the Moral Decency of John McCain:
His first wife Carol was a model, but while he was in Vietnam, she had a terrible traffic accident on an icy road and have to have a dozen surgeries that left her dependent on crutches and -- because she had to have five-inch sections of her legs removed -- much shorter and heavier.
When John got back from Viietnam, he saw he was no longer married to a hot model so he started cheating left and right. When he was 42, he met an incredibly rich 24-year-old blonde (Cindy) and got their marriage license while he was still married to Carol.
Carol's massive medical bills and care were covered by friendfs like Ross Perot and nancy Reagan.
A few years ago, McCain -- in front of two reporters -- snapped at Cindy and called her "you c***."
He is trash.
His first wife Carol was a model, but while he was in Vietnam, she had a terrible traffic accident on an icy road and have to have a dozen surgeries that left her dependent on crutches and -- because she had to have five-inch sections of her legs removed -- much shorter and heavier.
When John got back from Viietnam, he saw he was no longer married to a hot model so he started cheating left and right. When he was 42, he met an incredibly rich 24-year-old blonde (Cindy) and got their marriage license while he was still married to Carol.
Carol's massive medical bills and care were covered by friendfs like Ross Perot and nancy Reagan.
A few years ago, McCain -- in front of two reporters -- snapped at Cindy and called her "you c***."
He is trash.
07-27-2008, 03:03 AM
DogBrain Wrote:
There is No Self Wrote:
A question for my friends in the US of A. Who's looking likely to be Obama's running mate? What's the word on your side of the pond?
It's up in the air. Clinton has enormous machinery to call into action, but she's very polarizing. Obama might do well to find someone who has a less urbane image, too--more of a traditional "blue collar" Democrat.
for a couple of months I've had my bet on a seldom-mentioned outside chance -- Tim Kaine , the governor of Virginia. It's important for Obama to win Virginia, he would do best to choose a governor rather than a legislator, and Kaine is at least tolerable to both moderates and the Democratic base... and he's a "more traditional 'blue-collar' Democrat."
When Obama toured Europe this week, who accompanied him? Anti-war Republican Chuck Hagle... and Tim Kaine.
07-27-2008, 03:35 AM
Just read this from the Wall Street Journal on the Obama VP question:
“His focus now includes five colleagues in the U.S. Senate — Joseph Biden, Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Jack Reed — and two governors, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, according to Democratic operatives, though he could still make a different pick.”
“His focus now includes five colleagues in the U.S. Senate — Joseph Biden, Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Jack Reed — and two governors, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, according to Democratic operatives, though he could still make a different pick.”
07-27-2008, 01:14 PM
*sinister deep voice*
Barack Obama wants to sell your children to Islamic Terrorists.
Barack Obama once invested money in 3rd world Business and Enterprise.
Barack Obama isn't even white yet still claims to be spiritual.
Would YOU vote for him?
(this is satire if you hadn't noticed)
Barack Obama wants to sell your children to Islamic Terrorists.
Barack Obama once invested money in 3rd world Business and Enterprise.
Barack Obama isn't even white yet still claims to be spiritual.
Would YOU vote for him?
(this is satire if you hadn't noticed)
07-27-2008, 01:18 PM
I'm not exactly a liberal ya know.
07-27-2008, 02:05 PM
Not that it really has anything to do with anything but Obama is better looking than the other hopefuls.
07-27-2008, 06:31 PM
There is No Self Wrote:
I thought Senator Richardson was supposed to be in the mix.
I don't think so. I sort of wish he were because I have found him to be quite competent and he has broad, excellent experience. But he does not come across well to the masses, so he's not an effective campaigner. The Dems look at him only as someone who might bring in more Lation votes, but Obama already has huge latino support (65 - 70%) so he doesn't "need" Richardson demographically.
07-27-2008, 06:33 PM
DogBrain Wrote:
Ian Wrote:
*sinister deep voice*
Barack Obama wants to sell your children to Islamic Terrorists.
Barack Obama once invested money in 3rd world Business and Enterprise.
Barack Obama isn't even white yet still claims to be spiritual.
Would YOU vote for him?
(this is satire if you hadn't noticed)
Barack Obama wants to sell your children to Islamic Terrorists.
Barack Obama once invested money in 3rd world Business and Enterprise.
Barack Obama isn't even white yet still claims to be spiritual.
Would YOU vote for him?
(this is satire if you hadn't noticed)
So, except for the "not white" part, you're saying that he's indistinguishable from any other major politician.
There's always a chance he's not saying anything at all.